Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license.
Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat.
We can research this topic together.
::::::::You said "under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal", but whether that was true or not, the actual practice was far from equal—very, very far. We have a whole article about how bad it was: ].
::::::::You said "under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal", but whether that was true or not, the actual practice was far from equal—very, very far. We have a whole article about how bad it was: ].
::::::::Report number 49 is a favorite exhibit of Japanese nationalist revisionists, but it will always be a very small example, failing to show the larger picture. ] (]) 12:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::::Report number 49 is a favorite exhibit of Japanese nationalist revisionists, but it will always be a very small example, failing to show the larger picture. ] (]) 12:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
:::::::::Please specify the issue. The content of the cited material is extensive and the location of the issue is unknown. According to this document, Koreans were members of the Imperial Japanese Army, and their application rate was several tens of times higher. Why did the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly took Koreans of the same people and routinely violate and rape them?
:::::::::No.49 is quoted because it is the only document by a third party. Those who claim to be sex slaves also cite this material as evidence of "tricked". Comparing the comfort women's income and the housemaid's income, it is common sense that such high-paying jobs were sexual services. If you have any other materials from a third party, please let me know.
:::::::::I have pointed out some of the issues in the McGraw-Hill textbook, but you have not refuted any of them. Why don't you argue? ] (]) 05:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think that the opinion that the claim of Japanese war crime denialism should be excluded from this article is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is not the place to make such judgments, and neither are its editors. For debate, facts need to be shared. American scholars should refute the McGraw-Hill textbook's request for revision on the basis of evidence, not on the label of historical revisionist. The content of the textbook overlaps with the North Korean government's claim (para.69 of Coomaraswamy Report; “the forcible recruitment of 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves, their severe sexual assault and the killing of most of them in the aftermath”). ] (]) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
::::::I think that the opinion that the claim of Japanese war crime denialism should be excluded from this article is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is not the place to make such judgments, and neither are its editors. For debate, facts need to be shared. American scholars should refute the McGraw-Hill textbook's request for revision on the basis of evidence, not on the label of historical revisionist. The content of the textbook overlaps with the North Korean government's claim (para.69 of Coomaraswamy Report; “the forcible recruitment of 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves, their severe sexual assault and the killing of most of them in the aftermath”). ] (]) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
Revision as of 05:10, 10 June 2022
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Comfort women article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.
Comfort women was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Asia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Asia on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AsiaWikipedia:WikiProject AsiaTemplate:WikiProject AsiaAsia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject China, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of China related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChinaWikipedia:WikiProject ChinaTemplate:WikiProject ChinaChina-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Korea, a collaborative effort to build and improve articles related to Korea. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how use this banner, please refer to the documentation.KoreaWikipedia:WikiProject KoreaTemplate:WikiProject KoreaKorea-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Indonesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Indonesia and Indonesia-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IndonesiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndonesiaTemplate:WikiProject IndonesiaIndonesia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Japan, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Japan-related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project, participate in relevant discussions, and see lists of open tasks. Current time in Japan: 11:20, December 27, 2024 (JST, Reiwa 6) (Refresh)JapanWikipedia:WikiProject JapanTemplate:WikiProject JapanJapan-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tambayan Philippines, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics related to the Philippines on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Tambayan PhilippinesWikipedia:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesTemplate:WikiProject Tambayan PhilippinesPhilippine-related
This article is part of WikiProject Vietnam, an attempt to create a comprehensive, neutral, and accurate representation of Vietnam on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.VietnamWikipedia:WikiProject VietnamTemplate:WikiProject VietnamVietnam
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Crime and Criminal BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Crime and Criminal BiographyCrime-related
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Feminism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Feminism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.FeminismWikipedia:WikiProject FeminismTemplate:WikiProject FeminismFeminism
This article is part of WikiProject Gender studies. This WikiProject aims to improve the quality of articles dealing with gender studies and to remove systematic gender bias from Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate in the project, you can choose to edit this article, or visit the project page for more information.Gender studiesWikipedia:WikiProject Gender studiesTemplate:WikiProject Gender studiesGender studies
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sexology and sexuality, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of human sexuality on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Sexology and sexualityWikipedia:WikiProject Sexology and sexualityTemplate:WikiProject Sexology and sexualitySexology and sexuality
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women's History, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Women's history and related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women's HistoryWikipedia:WikiProject Women's HistoryTemplate:WikiProject Women's HistoryWomen's History
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.WomenWikipedia:WikiProject WomenTemplate:WikiProject WomenWikiProject Women
This topic contains controversial issues, some of which have reached a consensus for approach and neutrality, and some of which may be disputed.
Before making any potentially controversial changes to the article, please carefully read the discussion-page dialogue to see if the issue has been raised before, and ensure that your edit meets all of Misplaced Pages's policies and guidelines. Please also ensure you use an accurate and concise edit summary.
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present.
BRD discussion re mention of 2021 paper: "Contracting for sex in the Pacific War"
This mention of the paper by @Burtsbeez123 was reverted here by @Binksternet. I note that the characterization of the removed mention of the was sketchy, and only this YouTube video was cited in support. The paper can be seen at Ramseyer, J. Mark (2021). "Contracting for sex in the Pacific War". International Review of Law and Economics. 65 (March). doi:10.1016/j.irle.2020.105971. Considering WP:DUE, it seems to me that the question of whether or not the paper has sufficient weight for mention in this article should be discussed here. Comments? Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 20:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)
On the contrary. Ramseyer addressed all of the criticisms in a recent article. As you can see if you read the PDF (and as I noted briefly in a comment a year ago) none of his critics were able to counter any of his actual arguments. Interestingly enough, if you read through each of Ramseyer's articles, as well as those of his critics, you'll notice that the main argument on both sides is exactly the same―namely, that there is "no evidence indicating that the majority of the comfort women had worked voluntarily / involuntarily". This is the strongest point on both sides, and one that both sides implicitly admit.
Ramseyer's articles are not only peer-reviewed, but they are also some of the most neutral and objective sources written on the subject. If you check all the sources cited in the Misplaced Pages article in its current form, you'll notice that it has been written almost entirely based on a small number of anecdotes. Most of the sources are cases of circular reporting, i.e. they cite one another and cherry-pick evidence to fit a predefined narrative―in this case, the view that comfort women were sex slaves. As has been noted by Sarah Soh and Park Yu-ha, as well as several Korean professors, reality was far more complex. Some comfort women worked voluntarily, others were sold to the brothel owners by parents as a way to settle debts, and still others were tricked into signing the contracts; all of which is very much in line with what we know of historical systems of prostitution. No one claims to know what percentage had been voluntary as opposed to involuntary. All neutral, fact-checked sources agree on this point.
As a reliable peer-reviewed article and as a significant view on the subject, as per WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:NPOV, respectively, Ramseyer's papers should be cited and mentioned in the article. His critics should also be cited, of course, for the sake of neutrality. In this case full censorship violates WP:NPOV, WP:SOURCETYPES and WP:UNDUE, and is thereby not appropriate. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 00:20, 1 February 2022 (UTC)
here is a link to a petition that condemned Ramseyer's publication: http://chwe.net/irle/letter/ Despite being committed to academic freedom, thousands of professors from different academic fields signed the petition, agreeing "that this article goes well beyond mere academic failure or malpractice in its breach of academic standards, integrity, and ethics." — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeoplesSleepingParty (talk • contribs) 19:07, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
This is even worse than the criticisms I was referring to. The petition starts by asserting that Ramseyer attempted to argue that “young women and girls, many in their teens, voluntarily contracted themselves into sex work at 'comfort stations'”. But as anyone can tell by taking a single glance at Ramseyer's paper, not only does he never mention the women working voluntarily (which you can readily check with CTRL+F) he even explicitly points out, multiple times, that Japanese and Korean prostitutes at the time often entered the profession to pay off debts (either their own or their parents'). In today's world, many would define this as debt bondage or "debt slavery".
Those subjected to debt bondage in modern times generally do so because they have no other choice, and, in the case of historical Japanese prostitutes, Ramseyer admits as much on page 5, section 2.4: "when Japanese reformers complained about how women had become prostitutes, they complained about the parents: that parents had effectively sold their daughters into prostitution. They had not wanted to go, some women reported. But their parents had induced them to agree in order to collect the indenture advance". This was true for prostitutes not only in Japan and Korea, and not only before and after WW2, but throughout history.
The very fact that these 'professors' signed the petition without even reading Ramseyer's paper tells us everything we need to know about their credibility. Coming from a scientific field, I know no expert worth their salt would ever put their name on anything of the sort without double-checking its content. The fact that these 'professors' did so without second thought suggests that they have vested interests.
Which is not surprising―as I mentioned above, many historians who have written on the subject have previously simply parroted the claims of old sources from the 1990s without doing any fact-checking or critical analysis of their own, engaging in blatant circular reporting. Now that neutral researchers such as Sarah Soh, Park Yu-ha and Ramseyer have shown that throughout all those years, these historians had neglected to do their job, I can't blame them for attempting to get people to dismiss this newer research in order to protect their careers and reputations.
That said, glancing at the credentials of the signatories, most of them do not seem to be historians at all. Which begs the question, if they did not read Ramseyer's paper, and they are not even experts of the field, why did they sign the petition, and why should anyone care? I don’t believe Misplaced Pages puts much weight on a layman’s opinion, especially a demonstrably uninformed opinion, as is the case here.
As editors, we should prioritize sources based on their objective reliability. A peer-reviewed source is more credible than a petition is. As such, Ramseyer's paper should be mentioned as a significant minority view as per WP:RS. Bavio the Benighted (talk) 10:04, 24 February 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 17 March 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
The title of this article should be changed to Comfort Women - Sex Slaves or something similar to immediately show that the women involved were forced to have sex WeyBirk (talk) 08:01, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
The problem with this is that, if the title was changed as suggested, we would need a different article for those comfort women who worked voluntarily. Which, based on the available evidence, could comprise anywhere between 1%-99% of all comfort women. And since there's no evidence indicating that the majority were forced to work, making the requested change would require removing all content pertaining to comfort women in general (e.g. the number of comfort women). Bavio the Benighted (talk) 15:41, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 March 2022
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Remove the sentence "One New Guinean activist estimated 16,161 comfort women but is doubted by Japanese historians."
The prior sentence stating the number is unknown is sufficient. Additionally, any doubt on numbers should be noted only when it is shared by historians outside of Japan. Japanese historians may be subconsciously or consciously biased against belief in the severity of the event and presenting doubt held only by historians in that country is poor scholarship. A minimum evidence of support or doubt from historians outside of Japan should also be presented. 2603:900A:1901:C893:DCB:F27D:C963:5945 (talk) 20:24, 20 March 2022 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
Please change the term "surviving sex slaves" to "surviving women" in the sentence "In 2007, the surviving sex slaves wanted an apology from the Japanese government. Shinzō Abe, the prime minister at the time, stated on March 1, 2007, that there was no evidence that the Japanese government had kept sex slaves, even though the Japanese government had already admitted the use of coercion in 1993. On March 27 the Japanese parliament issued an official apology."
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.
There's a grammar mistake on the outline: "...as a response to wholesale rape of Chinese women by Japanese soliders." Change solider to soldier. Hoofgrit (talk) 21:34, 30 May 2022 (UTC)
It is now common knowledge that comfort women have two opinions: prostitutes or sexual slaves. This article clearly violates Misplaced Pages's policies of 5P1 and 5P2. The description of "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls forced into sexual slavery by the Imperial Japanese Army ..." should be changed as "Comfort women or comfort girls were women and girls to provide sexual services to Imperial Japanese military personnel and civilian employees at the facilities called a comfort station". And both opinions should be written together. The editors of this article please again check Wickipedia's policies.Eyagi (talk) 06:20, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
There are many scholars who have written about how the many sex slaves were forced into service, and how the smaller number of prostitutes were recruited. Both prostitutes and sex slaves were involved at the same time. The sex slaves were more numerous than prostitutes.
I don't see "two opinions" in the sources; I see two different types of comfort women combining in the same topic. Few people would care about official military prostitutes, but many people are very concerned about the sanctioned rape of forced sex slaves, which is why the topic is mostly about them. Binksternet (talk) 06:53, 5 June 2022 (UTC)
I think the core of the debate is whether your perception of "The sex slaves were more numerous than prostitutes" is correct or not. On March 7, 2015, 19 Japanese historians issued a statement specifically pointing out eight errors in the McGraw-Hill textbook's description of comfort women and calling for their correction. However, American scholars have not responded to any of these points. The reporter of the Coomara-swamy Report, the only documented evidence, stated that she believed the comfort station was a system of sex slavery because the contents of G. Hicks and Yoshida Seiji's book matched the testimony of 16 former comfort women. Hicks' book (1995) is based on the rumors of the time (the number of comfort women was 200,000, mostly Koreans, recruited under the name of "women's volunteer corps"), Seiji Yoshida's book (1983) (Korean women were forcibly taken at gunpoint and raped), and the testimony of former comfort women (forced to be taken against their will, daily physical assault and rape, no compensation, etc.). The number of comfort women certified by the Korean government is 240, although there is no explanation of the grounds. There is a document
"BEHIND THE COMFORT WOMEN CONTROVERSY: HOW LIES BECAME TRUTH" that explains how the theory of sexual slavery was created. Please look through it once. Eyagi (talk) 09:00, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The group of "19 Historians" of Japan is countered by 20 Western historians led by Alexis Dudden who say that the 19 are misguided in their attempt to change history.
I don't know enough details to opine. I'm not asserting that the views expressed on the website might not be contrary to mainstream views. I don't know whether they are regarded as WP:FRINGE enough to be simply ignored I se that the listed author is described in the WP article about him as professor of International Christian Studies at Tokyo Christian University, for whatever that might be worth. It just seemed to me that this might meet the criteria for mention found in WP:DUE to fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint in the published, reliable sources. Wtmitchell(talk) (earlier Boracay Bill) 16:04, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
The scholarly debate can and should be summarized for the reader. The viewpoint of the 19 Historians could be attributed to them, per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV. I don't think the material under discussion is strong enough to redefine the topic, especially since a lot of topic scholars disagree. Binksternet (talk) 18:06, 6 June 2022 (UTC)
I believe that labeling and dismissing differing opinions is an escape from the debate and I understand that Alexis Dudden's position is that all of the former comfort women's testimonies are correct, although she does not provide any evidence for her claims. The subject of the former comfort women's testimony is an event that occurred about 50 years ago. Whether or not their testimonies are correct must be verified with the primary documents. All of the contents of the former comfort women's testimonies are in violation of the domestic laws and military regulations of the time. I think it seriously undermines the credibility of Misplaced Pages to forever exclude claims other than sexual slavery. Eyagi (talk) 06:41, 7 June 2022 (UTC)
Japanese war crime denialism is a well-known topic and absolutely should be included in the debate to highlight that 50 years after the atrocities committed by Japan, high-level government officials, academics, and historians solely in Japan continue to deny, dismiss, or pass off as "not that bad" the fact that these events occurred, going so far as to claim Japan was the victim of it all. Absolutely the opinions of these historians, with attribution, belong in the article under its own section on Japanese denialism, weighted and written objectively with lots of sources of course. Otherwise or concurrently, the article can mention the phenomenon of willing prostitution as appropriate. That's my 2¢. ミラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 00:54, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
I agree. The complaint that the modern testimony of comfort women should be thrown out in favor of the very few primary source interviews from 1943–1945 is a common strategy of the denialists. They all want to discredit widely known facts based on a very limited primary source sample. Binksternet (talk) 03:38, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
There are many primary sources related to comfort women. The Japanese Empire was a nation governed by law, and under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal. In 1916, a licensed prostitution system was introduced in accordance with the system of mainland Japan (the purpose was to prevent sexually transmitted diseases and maintain social moral), and the procedure for obtaining a license and the age at which the license was permitted were set. This system had taken root in society. To obtain a license, written consents of herself and her parent, and a copy of the contract between herself and her parents with the employer were required, and the minimum age was 17 years old. The contract was a multi-year indenture with upfront payment, and the upfront money was received by her parents at the time of the contract. Korea, like Japan, was under the patriarchal system, and obeying the will of the parents was a virtue. Therefore, the will of herself at that time was the will of the parents. The number of licensed prostitutes, the number of licensed brothels and restaurants where they works, and geisha residence, the number of recruiters, the number of venereal disease tests and infection rates, and the number of crimes and arrests for kidnapping, etc. are recorded in the Statistical Annual Report of the Korean Governor-General. Military regulations regarding comfort stations and military police records are held in the Asian Women's Fund archives.
Military regulations were enacted in accordance with domestic law. Military regulations stipulate that the employment of comfort women must be accompanied by the consent of her and the signing of a contract. Violence in the comfort stations was strictly prohibited, and any violence (caused mainly by drunkenness or intoxication) was punished. Comfort women who testify that they had no written consent or contract are in violation of the law. The Coomaraswamy Report asserts that the comfort station regulations are evidence of guilt (para. 20). Editors please read through the regulations and see if this assertion is correct. This regulations and the contents of the Japanese Prisoner of War Interrogation Report 49 (owner Kimura and his wife are Korean couples with Japanese names) are in good agreement. The average monthly salary of a Korean housemaid with meal and room at the end of 1942 was 11.07 yen. This Report cites Seiji Yoshida's book as documented evidence of " para.29, the comfort women's testimony that they were recruited through violence and coercion” and “ para.30, the majority of the women were between the ages of 14 and 18". As is well known, Yoshida later confessed that the book was fiction. The only documented evidence of being forced recruitment is gone. American scholars should admit these facts frankly. Eyagi (talk) 08:58, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
You said "under the law, Japanese and Koreans were equal", but whether that was true or not, the actual practice was far from equal—very, very far. We have a whole article about how bad it was: Korea under Japanese rule.
Report number 49 is a favorite exhibit of Japanese nationalist revisionists, but it will always be a very small example, failing to show the larger picture. Binksternet (talk) 12:13, 9 June 2022 (UTC)
Please specify the issue. The content of the cited material is extensive and the location of the issue is unknown. According to this document, Koreans were members of the Imperial Japanese Army, and their application rate was several tens of times higher. Why did the Imperial Japanese Army forcibly took Koreans of the same people and routinely violate and rape them?
No.49 is quoted because it is the only document by a third party. Those who claim to be sex slaves also cite this material as evidence of "tricked". Comparing the comfort women's income and the housemaid's income, it is common sense that such high-paying jobs were sexual services. If you have any other materials from a third party, please let me know.
I have pointed out some of the issues in the McGraw-Hill textbook, but you have not refuted any of them. Why don't you argue? Eyagi (talk) 05:10, 10 June 2022 (UTC)
I think that the opinion that the claim of Japanese war crime denialism should be excluded from this article is contrary to the purpose of wikipedia. Misplaced Pages is not the place to make such judgments, and neither are its editors. For debate, facts need to be shared. American scholars should refute the McGraw-Hill textbook's request for revision on the basis of evidence, not on the label of historical revisionist. The content of the textbook overlaps with the North Korean government's claim (para.69 of Coomaraswamy Report; “the forcible recruitment of 200,000 Korean women as military sexual slaves, their severe sexual assault and the killing of most of them in the aftermath”). Eyagi (talk) 05:07, 8 June 2022 (UTC)
.svg){kind=small}
.svg){kind=small}
Referencing and citation: criterion not met
Coverage and accuracy: criterion met
.svg){kind=small}
Not done: page move requests should be made at Misplaced Pages:Requested moves. Happy Editing--IAmChaos 09:43, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
Done; thanks for pointing that out. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 22:01, 30 May 2022 (UTC)